Skip to main content

Testimonies of policemen not to be suspected always: SC

There is no absolute command of law that the testimonies of cops should always be viewed with suspicion if public witnesses to an offence do not come forward to depose, the Supreme Court today said.

A bench of justices B S Chauhan and Dipak Misra said the testimony of a cop should not be disbelieved on the ground that that he is a policeman and rather, the deposition be scrutinised on "the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence."

"...There is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion.

"Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same," the bench said while referring to various previous judgements.

It said after scrutinising the evidence, the court may disbelieve the testimony of a policeman "but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust."

The observations came in a verdict rejecting the appeal of Pramod Kumar against his conviction for killing constable Maharaj Singh on March 19, 1999 at Gittorni village here.

Singh along with others had gone to a house at the village to arrest Pramod Kumar, a proclaimed offender who was evading arrest in a criminal case.

The accused, in his bid to flee, first stabbed the cop and then fired at him from his country-made pistol. The constable later died.

The trial court and the Delhi High Court upheld his conviction for various offences including that of murder.

Seeking acquittal, the convict told the apex court that apart from policemen, no independent witness was examined.

He also took the plea that in fact, another policeman had fired at Singh. The pleas, however, were rejected by the apex court.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/testimonies-of-policemen-not-to-be-suspected-always-sc-113070100767_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more